Businessman banished wife from family home but is now left with a pittance after family court divided assets

Mona Nygaard told NZME the decision brought a “great sense of relief” that she and her son were now one step closer to being able to move on.

But John Gandy, one of the lawyers acting for Oscar Nygaard, told NZME the decision was being appealed.

In a decision released in October, Judge Kevin Muir ordered Nygaard to pay his ex-wife $762,219, which her lawyer Jennie Hawker told NZME was the equivalent of a half share of the relationship ownership swimming pool.

Judge Muir said it included compensation for the “deliberate diminution in the value of the company”.

He also ordered Nygaard to pay $40,000 in compensation for the time he lived exclusively in the house, as a form of rent, plus an equalization payment of $265,000 to balance the amounts he had already withdrawn from the pool of trust funds fetched.

He would have suffered a greater loss if the court had lifted an order suspending Nygaard maintenance payments to his ex-wife.

Judge Muir said the sentence was not punitive; it simply reflected the reality the parties would have found themselves in after their divorce without Nygaard’s decisions.

Wedding on the rocks

There were signs that trouble was mounting when Nygaard began what the court described as “revenge spending,” taking away his wife’s access to bank accounts and then her name as a signatory on a home loan account.

They had been together for more than 25 years and married for most of that time, and Nygaard had worked hard to build a business worth $1.7 million, with help from Mona’s family.

Months after she was told to leave, Nygaard ordered their teenage son out of the house and his new partner moved in before the property was sold for $3.6 million.

He and his partner then moved to another country where they started a new family.

The court found that Nygaard’s actions were deliberate and sometimes vengeful, in the relationship that was “sadly interrupted” by what Judge Muir said: occasional cases of physical violence and an ongoing dynamic of psychological violence against Mona Nygaard.

Judge Muir said she did not actively work for the company and was not consulted on day-to-day or strategic decisions.

He said part of the power and control dynamic that existed between them meant that Nygaard occasionally insisted that what happened to the company was “none of her business.”

When they broke up, the shares in the company were worth about $1.2 million, but by the time the case went to trial they were worthless because the company had been liquidated.

Nygaard said the company’s loss of value was caused by the economic conditions at the time and the impact of the stress he experienced as a result of the divorce.

However, he accepted that he once told his ex-wife that he would do what he could to create debt within the company and trust so that she would receive nothing if they split.

Judge Muir said the result of the unilateral decision made at his wife’s expense was that he left a valuable business, causing a significant loss to both him and his wife.

“His actions were intentional and demonstrably vindictive, and the decline in the company’s value was clearly intentional as well.

“Not only was it an obvious result of what he did, it must have been the intended result.”

Family trust

The house was owned by A family trustof which Mona was curator and the couple’s son was the ultimate beneficiary.

They lived in inferior rental housing and had to move several times in the two and a half years after the divorce.

The court has now dissolved the trust, where the proceeds from the sale of the family home went and where Nygaard got money from.

At one point he withdrew about $129,000 from the trust’s flexible mortgage facility and went shopping after an argument during a family holiday abroad.

Some of it was used to pay spousal support under a previous court order.

However, Nygaard no longer had to pay alimony, given his reduced income since moving abroad and starting a new family.

“It is clear to me that he cannot afford to properly support his new family and his existing family,” Judge Muir said.

The court’s decision took into account business tax liabilities and assets the couple owned in what was described as a well-furnished home.

Mona Nygaard said she had not had a chance to inventory the belongings before her former husband left, but claimed he and his new partner took most of them with them.

She only had access a week before settlement and described the house as “70% empty,” and had to clear out the trash and clean the house with the help of the real estate agent.

“All valuable works of art, tools, clothing, kitchen items, furniture, stools, plants and anything of value had disappeared before they left the country,” Judge Muir said.

They were each allowed to keep their respective KiwiSaver accounts, while Mona will also receive proceeds from the sale of a Range Rover Sport worth $53,000, plus $5346 that was in her bank account when they split.

Oscar Nygaard will be allowed to keep the company’s stock, his clothing collection worth an estimated $200,000 plus $55,000 worth of property and art that was in the home, and the two paintings he kept worth $8,700.

He denied keeping the clothing collection, which was never formally valued, and said he “gave away” tools and materials that were company property.

Judge Muir said it was clear from the evidence and from what had happened since the divorce that Mona Nygaard would continue to provide their son with meaningful support, as she has done since the divorce.

*Names have been changed in accordance with Family Court rules.

Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s Nelson-Marlborough regional reporter and has covered general news including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.